mjmooney Posted December 5, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 5, 2012 If Jimmy Savile were still alive he would probably have been in the running for directorship of that. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 not sure you can just remove PFI without going to court. And can any government of any colour be seen to renege on contracts? You may need to create a new law, but that's what Parliament is for. Yes, governments can be seen to renege on contracts; they do far worse things. The alternative question would be "Can governments be seen to stand idly by, while poorly drafted and unsound contracts rip off the public for the benefit of the owners of large and wealthy firms?". But they shouldn't renege on many contracts, for any reason. There would need to be a case made that the contract was unreasonable, gives undue profits, does not apportion risk in the way claimed at the time, or whatever. An alternative would be a windfall tax on any profits in excess of what the government claimed it was agreeing at the time, or what the public was told in justification of this nonsense. The broader point about PFI is that it's a stupid way to fund anything, and came about only because of a self-inflicted rule about accounting for public spending. Like tying yourself in a sack and trying to swim. Further comment here: That successive governments feel the need to invent complicated private finance wheezes to get round their own fiscal rules only serves to underline the absurd incentives created by the way that investment spending is treated in the National Accounts. The only real alternative that will achieve the desired level of investment is to unblock the public finance route by recognising publicly financed assets as such, rather than just counting their cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I know what you mean about the beeb, but in only screws up every 6 or 7 years. and by and large it does a pretty good job. More importantly its left to its own devices. The only time politicians get involved is when something goes wrong. The trouble with the NHS is that every politician wants to talk about it. And politicians spend more time following their own party line. So they discuss whether funding is up or down, going on about ward closures, Mrsa, anything but solving the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I agree, if there is away to cancel the contract, legally, if the contracts were unsound or unreasonable they could be and should be. Point 2 should be that whoever drafted the contract should be sacked. not paid off with a golden handshake. Sacked properly sacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 This fixed 1% 'uprating' applies to the support group of ESA, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 5, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2012 they do it all the time i think BAE was interesting though as the government tried to cancel some contracts and BAE said you can do what you want but we are still going to build it and you still have to pay for it ( this was according to my friend who is in quite a senior role there , but probably still requires a pinch of salt ) That wasn't PFI, that was the the carrier conract (if your friend is talking about the same thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 That wasn't PFI, that was the the carrier conract (if your friend is talking about the same thing). yeah that was the one ... appreciate it wasn't PFI but it did suggest that governments are quite prepared to cancel signed contracts (or at least try ) , which i think was the original question ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 No comments on the Autumn Statement from the Boliticsentsia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Haven't seen it Tbh , will have a look once kids have been fed and put to bed Though I can already guess that Ian thinks it is awful , shambolic and all the other terms of endearment he reserved for our current government :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 5, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 5, 2012 yeah that was the one ... appreciate it wasn't PFI but it did suggest that governments are quite prepared to cancel signed contracts (or at least try ) , which i think was the original question ? Aye, maybe so, but that one had particular circs, which made it a cast iron non-starter to be able to cancel it. I'm sure lots of bodies would like to get out of all sorts of contracts, but the "moral" side of it needs to be "unfair" and "wrong-minded" to have any justification. There was no such in this example, and even PFI, which is an obvious daft idea for all sorts of reasons - Gov'ts entered into them to gain themselves an advantage, so for then a Gov't to try to annul or default, because they've (or their successor) been "found out"would be totally unfair on a builder or service provider or whoever. Yes we, the population (or taxpayers) are worse off because of these daft contracts is true, but our representatives entered into the contracts knowing the score fully. Appealing as the notion might be, it's not a practical proposal and unfair on the other party (even if that party might not always be considered "deserving" or "worthy enough"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Haven't seen it Tbh , will have a look once kids have been fed and put to bed Though I can already guess that Ian thinks it is awful , shambolic and all the other terms of endearment he reserved for our current government :-) He wouldn't be alone in that. Apparently the OBR is now saying the problem is lack of demand. So Osborne cuts benefits, money which would all have been spent on creating demand, and cuts corporation tax despite business currently sitting on vast piles of cash which they aren't investing because there's not enough demand. Perhaps it's a matter of personal pride for him to refuse to acknowledge that his approach is completely wrong, and to pile on more of the same. If it's true that repeating the same thing expecting a different outcome is an indication of insanity, then it looks like time to section Mr. O. Is it one doctor and a psychiatric social worker you need for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm sure lots of bodies would like to get out of all sorts of contracts, but the "moral" side of it needs to be "unfair" and "wrong-minded" to have any justification. There was no such in this example, and even PFI, which is an obvious daft idea for all sorts of reasons - Gov'ts entered into them to gain themselves an advantage, so for then a Gov't to try to annul or default, because they've (or their successor) been "found out"would be totally unfair on a builder or service provider or whoever. I would say the reason for entering PFI contracts was not for government to give itself an advantage in any meaningful sense of the term, and certainly not to give itself an advantage over the other party in the contract, but as a way of trying to get round some truly, madly, deeply stupid rules which they had been persuaded to inflict on themselves by an unholy alliance of economists and accountants, who should have been introduced to the ducking stool rather than given house room. Many of the contracts were ludicrously one-sided in favour of the private companies. No doubt there is considerable overlap between the civil servants and ministers doing this, and the companies who profit. We need have no qualms about striking down this transparent attempt to fleece us. The companies should be grateful if we don't seize their assets by way of compensation. What should be a far bigger concern in terms of contracts is the way that big firms enter into completely one-sided contracts with smaller ones, forcing them to agree to changes in the contract at their whim, sucking all the advantage out of the supposedly equal relationship. Supermarkets and their suppliers, care contracts with sub-contracted vol orgs, for example. Yes we, the population (or taxpayers) are worse off because of these daft contracts is true, but our representatives entered into the contracts knowing the score fully. Appealing as the notion might be, it's not a practical proposal and unfair on the other party (even if that party might not always be considered "deserving" or "worthy enough"). Someone entering into a contract loaded in their favour need not complain if they are found out and the contract struck down. Contracts are ruled out of order from time to time, and many deserve to be, including those (perhaps especially those) entered into by elected representatives using other peoples' money to channel funds to their mates, their future employers, those who give them sinecure "directorships". It's more corrupt, and on a much bigger scale, than any expenses stuff. Let's call it so, and act accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm not sure if it belongs here, but since the oafish Charade has taken up more of our space than he ever warranted, let's link this clip of him being shown up in the Euro Parliament for being a lazy, work-dodging, expense-claiming, utter hypocrite. I'm fascinated by his mouth movements in the clip, like a suffocating trout on a riverbank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 On Osborne's woeful recital today, this is quite good. On the bigger picture, there is a god: Osborne has two roles in the government, chancellor and chief electoral strategist Who would not want to go up against this "strategist"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 We need have no qualms about striking down this transparent attempt to fleece us. The companies should be grateful if we don't seize their assets by way of compensation. You'll get no argument from me that PFI was ill thought out and is an unmitigated disaster, but I sometimes wonder if your political heart wouldn't be more at home in the various socialist paradises of South America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 You'll get no argument from me that PFI was ill thought out and is an unmitigated disaster, but I sometimes wonder if your political heart wouldn't be more at home in the various socialist paradises of South America! I do sometimes think that Sendero Luminoso might have some good tactics for dealing with Mr Osborne. But then my gentle, pacifist nature reasserts itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 If it's true that repeating the same thing expecting a different outcome is an indication of insanity, then it looks like time to section Mr. O. Is it one doctor and a psychiatric social worker you need for that? But then we'd have to lock you up as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 But then we'd have to lock you up as well. The Mountie may well post/repeat many of the views/arguments he believes in (and very worthy and well thought out views they be, IMO), but I'm not really sure he expects a different outcome each time he makes a post. There are a lot of entrenched views in here ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 But then we'd have to lock you up as well. Just for you, dearie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 You bounder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts